To add insult to injury: more co-locations and charter school funding tonight at the PEP

The Panel for Educational Policy will vote in Staten Island tonight on the co-locations of another ten schools.

As Joel Klein said at the last PEP meeting, “I wish we had much more space so that each school could have all the space it needs, but we have the space that’s provided to us in our capital budget and by the city. And our obligation is to ensure that that space is shared equally by all 1.1 million students.”

Yet the more co-locations he orders, the more overcrowding is created for all 1.1 million public school students. As John White admitted at a recent City Council hearing, small schools and charters are an inefficient use of space. Moreover, these co-locations will create further inequities across the system.

The Daily News has an article in today’s paper about how the co-locations are pushing out special education students, who in many cases are receiving their services in locker rooms, closets and staircases: Parents say special-ed kids falling victim in charter battle for space inside city schools .

In our principal survey, more than one fourth of principals (27 percent) said that the co-location of new schools or programs in their buildings had worsened the level of overcrowding in their schools, leading in many cases to lunch times before 11 AM, and slightly more than half said that overcrowding sometimes leads to unsafe conditions for students or staff.

Moreover, some of the schools that will be forced to give up additional space are on the city, state and/or federal accountability lists, and yet still have excessive class sizes.

For example, Washington Irving HS, according to the DOE, has a graduation rate of 38.3 percent. It is quite likely that next year, the school will be on the chopping block unless its results radically improve. And yet the average reported class size is over 28 students per class.; and in many subjects, classes are as large as 34, and one CTT class has a class size of 41.

These class sizes are far too large and much higher than the other schools in the building, some of which are more selective with higher achieving students.

If there is room to put a new school into the building in which Washington Irving HS is located, there is also be room to reduce class size to at least the state mandated level of 25, or even better, to the state average class size for high schools, which is twenty students per class.

The failure of DOE to reduce class size at Washington Irving, full of struggling students, is not only inequitable; it calls into question whether the administration intends to allow this school to improve results or would rather see the school, along with its students, fail.

For other examples of the negative impacts of these co-locations, see our full comments here.

To add insult to injury, also on the PEP agenda tonight is the DOE's proposal (see pp.12-13) to spend more than $2.08 million per year, totaling more than $10.4 million over five years, to train “non-public school principals” (read charter school principals) to become “school building” leaders.

Though the administration has apparently claimed that these are just “federal funds passing through the DOE,” they are actually redirecting Title II funds that could be used for many other purposes, including keeping class sizes as low as possible in the public schools, in the midst of potentially massive cuts to the teaching force. Or even to train public school teachers or principals.

Instead, DOE wants to use these precious funds to teach the principals of charter school how to run the buildings and boss the public schools whose space they have occupied.

Thoughts on Equitable Teacher Distribution

In a U.S. News & World Report article (“In Urban Classrooms, the Least Experienced Teach the Neediest Kids”), the New America Foundation’s MaryEllen McGuire offers a compelling analysis of the problem of inequitable teacher distribution in American schools.

Why are our least experienced professionals consistently being handed the most challenging teaching assignments? Because of the way seniority is rewarded in teacher contracts. More often that not, union contracts dictate that veteran teachers get first dibs on available positions within a school system. As a result, when given the chance, teachers often choose to transfer to more desirable, low-poverty schools. As a result of these transfers, students with the greatest educational need are time and time again taught by the least experienced teachers.

This is a topic that the Education Optimists have written about previously (see here and here). In addition, The Education Trust has done some good work on this issue, including this 2006 report ("Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality") by Kati Haycock and Heather Peske.

But compared to her solid conception of the problem, McGuire somewhat misses the mark on proposed solutions to inequitable teacher distribution. She writes:

This will require a long-term commitment to systemic reform including investing in low-poverty schools to make them more attractive teaching placements and funding incentives to initially attract experienced and, we hope, higher quality teachers to low-income schools. Will this require dollars beyond what we have? Not necessarily. Federal law already provides schools with money to pay for this. It's just that the funds typically go to reduce class sizes or provide professional development for teachers instead - strategies that have mixed results. Some of these funds should be redirected to pay for incentives drawing teachers into high-poverty schools. This is also a great use of stimulus money.

Should some federal Title II dollars be used for recruitment incentives? Sure - but let's not take that idea too far. The distribution problem is one of retention as much as it is one of recruitment. Title II funding should and can be used for high-quality professional development and high-quality induction and mentoring focused on improving teaching practice – efforts directed at making teachers more effective that simultaneously improve retention and self-efficacy. This legislation, sponsored by U.S. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, would go a long way toward these ends. Arguably, these approaches to teacher development are arguably a far better use of stimulus money than recruitment incentives.

In addition, as the author suggests (“more attractive teaching placements”), we need to work with school leaders and policymakers to improve the working conditions in these hard-to-staff, high-poverty schools and districts. We need to provide educators time to collaborate and a role in school decision-making—things that don't cost a whole lot of money but that do require a new way of doing business. Research has shown these factors are often more important than often paltry recruitment incentives in keeping the highest-quality, most effective teachers at hard-to-staff schools.

Federal Funding for Teacher Quality Innovation?

This is a follow-up to my post of two weeks ago about the use of Title II, Part A funding under NCLB. In these tight economic times, it is inevitable that the focus will move from spending more money on education to spending existing dollars more wisely. Currently, most school districts are not using these federal dollars in particularly innovative, let alone effective or impactful ways.

An article by Stephen Sawchuk ('Grants in NCLB to Aid Teaching Under Scrutiny') was published in this week's edition of Education Week. In part, it discusses the findings of a recent Education Sector report on this topic.

For those of you who aren't Ed Week subscribers and may not be able to access the story, here is a peek at the story:

The Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund—better known as Title II, Part A of NCLB—is the federal government’s second-largest K-12 investment, after the Title I grants for disadvantaged students. Ninety-five percent of the funds flow to school districts, and they come with few strings attached.

Although the fund has promoted some promising local practices, Title II, in general, “is not especially aligned with leading-edge [teacher-quality] efforts, and it’s the federal government’s big entry in this sweepstakes,” said Andrew J. Rotherham, the co-director of Education Sector, a Washington think tank, and the report’s author.

...

In his paper, Mr. Rotherham stakes out one conceptual approach that Mr. Obama and legislators could consider when they revise the program as part of the reauthorization of the NCLB law: to transform Title II into a fund for seeding innovations to the education human-capital continuum, and to disallow a handful of currently authorized activities, including class-size reduction.

...

Nationally representative U.S. Department of Education survey data show that districts in 2007-08 spent 6 percent of their Title II funds on professional-growth initiatives—such as mentoring programs or incentives for teachers to pursue certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards—and 4 percent on recruitment, including performance-based pay and teacher loan-forgiveness programs.

More than three-quarters of districts’ Title II allocations subsidize professional development and smaller class sizes. In his paper, Mr. Rotherham deems those activities “low leverage” because they typically lack quality-control mechanisms and reinforce traditional human-capital structures, rather than altering them.

Teacher Quality and Title II

Education Week published an incredibly important story this week by Stephen Sawchuk ("Spending On Federal Teacher-Quality Funds Questioned") and Education Sector issued an incredibly important report (Title 2.0: Revamping The Federal Role in Education Human Capital) on Title II, Part A dollars in No Child Left Behind. The notion of better utilizing existing resources is especially critical in light of the economic downturn and budgetary challenges which will make new resources harder to come by.

As I wrote in two recent posts ($29 Billion Buys You A New Education System? and Will The New President Support New Educators?), it is abundantly clear that Title II, Part A's $3 billion are not flowing toward the most impactful initiatives in schools and districts. Most are going to class-size reduction and professional development (of questionable quality).

In a nutshell, Education Sector recommends shifting "the federal government’s role from enabler of existing activities largely irrespective of quality to a driver of reform through strategic investments in new initiatives, institutions, and policy schemes to recruit, train, support, and evaluate and compensate teachers."

Easy stuff, right?